Senate Intel vice chair: We’ve been demanding these e-mails since the Benghazi attack

posted at 12:01 pm on October 24, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

If the scoop from Reuters last night surprised Americans with the knowledge that the intel community knew that the Benghazi attack was not a spontaneous demonstration that spun out of control, no one was more surprised than Senate Intelligence Committee vice chair Saxby Chambliss. His committee has been requesting those e-mails for weeks, and Chambliss to Fox and Friends that the information in them shows why they demanded them in the first place.

“At the very least,” Brian Kilmeade asks, “this shows a massive disconnect [between the intel community and the administration], doesn’t it?” “No question,” Chambliss answers, but he’s more concerned about how the White House handled the issue. “We got pushback, both from the White House and the intelligence community, early on. We couldn’t figure it out. I mean, that was really strange — because they never do that.” Chambliss now wants hearings in the Senate to pursue why these e-mails, and perhaps other intel, have been held back from Congress:

This points to a few possible conclusions. Either the White House and the intel community kept Congress out of the loop because they didn’t want to admit that terrorists had successfully attacked an American diplomatic mission for the first time in fourteen years, or because they didn’t know themselves what the data meant. Neither is particularly commendatory, although the latter looks a lot less dishonest. Nevertheless, despite having this detailed description of the attack and the fairly credible claim of credit for the attack from a leading terrorist network in the immediate area within two hours of the start of the attack, the White House chose to repeatedly claim that they had “no evidence” that the sacking was a planned terrorist attack for most of the next two weeks. That looks a lot more dishonest with every revelation that comes out in this issue.

That leaves the questions of the provenance of the revelations themselves. If the intel community was reticent about discussing what it knew and when it knew it, at least someone in that group wants the real story to come out. Those e-mails didn’t get leaked by anyone who was in the Situation Room that night and received them, certainly.

Update: Dave Weigel pushes back against the assumption that the Obama administration argued that they had “no evidence of terrorist attack”:

In the same story that breaks the news and gives readers the e-mails, CBS News prints an unaired answer that Obama gave Steve Kroft on September 12. It was his first interview after the attacks.

You’re right that this is not a situation that was — exactly the same as what happened in Egypt and my suspicion is that there are folks involved in this who were looking to target Americans from the start.

The next day, Obama was in Colorado, where he addressed the killings in Libya.

A couple of days ago, for four Americans were killed in an attack on our diplomatic post in Libya… So what I want all of you to know is that we are going to bring those who killed our fellow Americans to justice. I want people around the world to hear me: To all those who would do us harm, no act of terror will go unpunished.

Obama didn’t pretend that this was merely “a protest that got out of hand.” The trouble, when we look back at the timeline, is that reporters didn’t really glom onto the Libya story for a few days. When they did, by the Sunday shows and September 19, you had administration spokespeople soft-peddling the “target Americans from the start” story.

However, by the time we get to Sunday, September 16th, we have Susan Rice saying this, which has been proven categorically false:

… But based on the best information we have to date, what our assessment is as of the present is in fact what began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy–

BOB SCHIEFFER: Mm-Hm.

SUSAN RICE: –sparked by this hateful video. But soon after that spontaneous protest began outside of our consulate in Benghazi, we believe that it looks like extremist elements, individuals, joined in that– in that effort with heavy weapons of the sort that are, unfortunately, readily now available in Libya post-revolution. And that it spun from there into something much, much more violent.

But our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous — not a premeditated — response to what had transpired in Cairo.

And Jay Carney saying this two days later at a White House press briefing, emphasis mine:

MR. CARNEY: No, I’m saying that based on information that we — our initial information, and that includes all information — we saw no evidence to back up claims by others that this was a preplanned or premeditated attack; that we saw evidence that it was sparked by the reaction to this video. And that is what we know thus far based on the evidence, concrete evidence — not supposition — concrete evidence that we have thus far. But there is a lot that is under investigation here, and as more facts come to light, if they change that assessment, we’ll make that clear. But there’s an active investigation for a reason — so that we actually get the facts and don’t base our policy prescriptions on suppositions about what we think we know happened as opposed to what actually happened.

Q Would the administration still say that it was spontaneous?

MR. CARNEY: Based on the information that we have now, it was — there was a reaction to the video — there was protests in Cairo, then followed by protests elsewhere, including Benghazi, and that that was what led to the original unrest. The other factors here — all factors — but the other factors here, including participants in the unrest, participants in the violence, are under investigation. And the goal of that investigation is both to find out what happened and why, but also to track down and bring to justice those who killed four Americans. And we’re working with our Libyan counterparts to ensure that that happens, as the President committed it would.

Bear in mind that since this time, we have discovered that the State Department watched this unfold in real time and has video of the attack which is still hasn’t shared with Congress. The CIA station chief told them in a cable 24 hours later that this was a terrorist attack, and that they even knew who had commanded it. Finally, we have last night’s revelation that the Situation Room got e-mails from the intel community while the attack was underway that clearly gave evidence that this was no spontaneous demonstration gone amok. They had plenty of evidence — “concrete evidence,” to use Jay Carney’s terminology — that the sacking of the consulate and assassination of our Ambassador was a planned terrorist attack.

Yes, it’s incredible. When I first read about this conjecture I couldn’t believe even Obama would do this, but things are certainly pointing in this direction.

INC on October 24, 2012 at 12:58 PM

If, and a big IF, this is true, Watergate is child’s play…Fast & Furious is sandbox stuff (and btw, it may account for why they have executive privilege), this will be the biggest news story in decades…

I haven’t read all of the posts so I don’t know if this has been raised, but:
Has anyone considered the theory that the Obama administration hid, and is hiding the fact that they knew what this was, and who did it, to keep a tactical advantage in hunting down the terrorists? If you are going after someone you don’t want them to know you are on to them. Then after you get them, you make the announcement that you needed to keep your methods secret, and you have another killing-Bin-Laden type feather in your cap for the upcoming election. This seems at least somewhat plausible, and also would be somewhat excusable, if they do indeed get the terrorists.

I think classified testimony to the House would probably have been enough to settle that issue. If credible proof had been offered that that was indeed what they were doing, then the House wouldn’t have been after more documents.

As usual, should you or any member of your Consulate staff be captured or killed, the secretary will disavow any knowledge of your existence. This tape will…

This sounds like the message the Ambassador Steven received from the State Department…

d1carter on October 24, 2012 at 12:53 PM

That is giving the way tooooo much credit. You actually think that a message from a “fake” but competent spy agency would be played in this clown car? I think it went something like this. ” We are sorry that we missed your call,. Your call is very important to us. We are now closed. Please call back during our normal business hours.”

The self-castrated gop (scared of the NYT/WAPO and the cable channels) whines again.

FIRE THE ENTIRE gop LEADERSHIP, yesterday.

PappyD61 on October 24, 2012 at 1:17 PM

Sorry to dissappoint you, but their are rules and procedures that have to be legally followed…Issa and the rest are moving as fast as they can, but legal roadblocks sometimes takes times to maneuver around…and in this instance, there is no “horsepower”, regarding the MSM, to push it along.
The GOP are doing this on their own, no major newspaper, no major journalist, writer, has picked up this story, they are not touching it, so the public is not interested.

At some point I read an article similar to the one you posted about the US supplying armaments to the rebels and ending up in the wrong hands. It was not long after the Benghazi attack, and it was a discussion about Stevens’ presence there.

Sorry to dissappoint you, but their are rules and procedures that have to be legally followed…Issa and the rest are moving as fast as they can, but legal roadblocks sometimes takes times to maneuver around…and in this instance, there is no “horsepower”, regarding the MSM, to push it along.
The GOP are doing this on their own, no major newspaper, no major journalist, writer, has picked up this story, they are not touching it, so the public is not interested.

right2bright on October 24, 2012 at 1:30 PM

That’s all well and good, but I know what he’s talking about. When Romney wins we will have to fight the spineless RINO establishment to get anything done. Remember that tiny $100 billion they said they would cut after the tea party gave them the House? Tell me again house much Boehner and the boys cut?

“It is, I think, self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack. Our embassy was attacked violently and the result was four deaths of American officials – that is self-evident.”
– Jay Carney 9/20/2012

From the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
Definition of self-evident
: evident without proof or reasoning

“It is, I think, self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack. Our embassy was attacked violently and the result was four deaths of American officials – that’s self-evident”
Jay Carney 9/20/2012

Translation – Anybody who couldn’t figure out this was a terrorist attack from the start is an idiot or a liar.

The United States of America does not leave their own behind. Barack Hussein Obama left four Americans behind to die. He is a ruthless, evil ideologue who committed this act of treason just to get re-elected.

Obama Administration Now: We can’t call it a terrorist attack based on a posting on social media. We must wait until the investigation is concluded.

Obama Administration Then: What happened in Benghazi was in fact initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo, almost a copycat of– of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, which were prompted, of course, by the video….which was posted on youtube.

“Chambliss now wants hearings in the Senate to pursue why these e-mails, and perhaps other intel, have been held back from Congress”

HELLO? Come on. Chambliss isn’t this stupid.

This happened, what….. one month before the election? An election where the Mighty “O” was going around spiking footballs all over the nation, pounding his chest as the greatest Bid Laden and Al Qaeda killer EVAH?

Everyone with one working brain cell knows why this administration covered this up and buried it.

A note regarding HRC’s assertion (?defense?) this morning that “social media is not evidence” with regard to the e-mails sent the night of the Benghazi attack. Let’s forget for a moment the content of the e-mails, and check the Subject: line. They use the term Attack – not Demonstration.

If the collective noses in the White House grow any longer, they’re going to have to employ warning signals before rounding a corner.

What you’ve said here goes along with everything I’ve read and seen about this. The Washington Times article puts it all together and rings true as I read it. Fast & Furious in the M.E.

Someone said this Benghazi attack was from Syria, which is certainly a possibility. These arms being supplied from Benghazi via Turkey were being used against Assad. He’s already seen the results of Egypt & Libya and is probably better prepared.

yes. administration is gun running with al qaeda all over the middle east and now to syria from libya by way of turkey to support the muslim brotherhood. this is what the administration doesn’t want us to know and the reason for not putting extra security in benghazi..someone might see it and bedsides why bother if stevens is handing guns out right to left??? then bo and shillary turn away and say it’s a stinking video to cover . un freakin believable. david horowitz said it was so on hannity this pm. glen has been saying it too for severakl days.

We now know that the administration knew who, what and where, and they chose to do nothing.Four Americans died and the people who carried out the attack are walking around giving interviews and flipping the bird to The Weak One. So they did nothing during the attack, they have done nothing for 6 weeks, and the FBI is investigating this as if it is a criminal action. Now that really should make all Americans proud of their government, pushed around by 4th century goat herders, and Barry is still apologizing to them.

The White House was playing a Byzantine game, see, to trick the terrorists into complacency (or whatever) by pretending all along that they, the White House, thought the attack was only a spontaneous reaction to a video – and – it was just the media, the loyal opposition, their entire administration – mindbogglingly even including the White House, itself – who ran with the spontaneous demonstration explanation even though the White house clearly said from the start it was a terrorist attack…and even though they also said that, while it was apparently OK for them to speculate without evidence that the attack was a spontaneous reaction to a video, it was not OK for them to speculate without evidence that it was a terrorist act. Got it.

“At the very least,” Brian Kilmeade asks, “this shows a massive disconnect [between the intel community and the administration], doesn’t it?” “No question,” Chambliss answers, but he’s more concerned about how the White House handled the issue. “We got pushback, both from the White House and the intelligence community, early on.

How exactly is this an “intelligence failure”?
1. Initial reports don’t typically come from intelligence sources. They usually come from open source, diplomatic, or military operations channels (diplomatic, not intel, in the case of the emails mentioned above).
2. What did intel get wrong? The policymakers had the information within hours of the event and kept telling the same debunked story.
3. Why would the DNI throw himself under the bus the way he did, fully knowing what had actually happened in Libya?
Bottom line: This was a policy, not intelligence, failure.

The other issue is whether the POTUS, the Secretary of State, and our UN Ambassador should be out there groveling and apologizing because the US has a First Amendment freedom to mock and satirize religion. Like that Broadway musical “Book of Mormon” Hilary paid big bucks to see a while back.